Unthinkable

What happened ten years ago today was unthinkable. Literally. At the time it happened, most people were unable to think about it, to really accept that it was happening. Many still are. The devastation and death, the pain and suffering, were too much of a shock for most people to even mentally process. Thousands of people murdered, out of the blue; images of mayhem and tales of suffering thrown at people over and over again. Overwhelming emotions--sadness, anger, frustration, helplessness--seared into people's minds forever.

That's what propagandists love. The best way to bypass rational thought is through extreme emotion. Politicians know it. Used car salesmen know it. Moviemakers know it. Dragging people around by their emotions is relatively easy, compared to dragging them around by their intellects. If you want to manipulate and control someone, using emotion is your best bet. Showing people heart-breaking images of starving children, and then asking for donations. Scaring people with some horrible threat, and then asking them to support your method of prevention. Showing people a grave injustice, and then asking them to lash out at the perpetrators. If you want to influence someone's thoughts and actions, appealing to their feelings will work a lot more often than appealing to their ability to think. Likewise, if someone wants to deceive and manipulate you, you can bet it will be through emotion.

This is not to say that emotions shouldn't exist, and that we should all be unflinching Vulcans. But our rational minds are what distinguish us from other animals. Anyone who owns a dog knows that dogs can get sad, or angry, or scared. And trying to reason with a dog, to get it to disregard an unnecessary and unhelpful emotion--such as being terrified by thunder--does not work. The question is, are we humans any different? How often do our emotions get the better of us, and how often do our feelings override or even disable our ability to think rationally?

Ten years ago today, some truly horrible things happened, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. That much, no one doubts. But what exactly happened, and who was responsible, has been debated ever since. Well, perhaps "debate" is not the right word, because the discussion has been more often emotional than rational. Understandably, even years after it happened, many people are still unable to think about the events of 9/11/01 in any sort of detached, neutral, objective way.

My goal here is not to provide piles of evidence about the events of 9/11, or to give any sort of comprehensive theory about what all really happened. Instead, my goal here is to address what has to come first: open-minded, rational thought--something most Americans are unable or unwilling to engage in. Before evidence matters, people have to dare to look at evidence. Before a hypothesis can be worth anything, people must be willing to consider different possibilities. And most Americans are not.

To wit, most Americans self-righteously scoff at so-called "conspiracy theories" concerning 9/11. However, only an absolute moron would think the events of 9/11 were not the result of a conspiracy. It wasn't a spur-of-the-moment idea. Some number of people obviously spent a lot of time and effort conspiring to commit mass murder. Ergo, it obviously was a conspiracy. That is indisputable. The question is, who were the conspirators? Were they Middle Eastern terrorists? Were they agents of the U.S. government? Trouble is, the latter possibility is unthinkable--most people literally are unwilling or unable to think about it. "That's ridiculous," is the most common response. What those people really mean is, "I don't want to consider that possibility."

Any good homicide investigator looking into a murder would begin with some basic questions: Who could have been motivated to do this? Who had the means to pull it off? Who had something to gain? Who could have pulled it off? Considering such questions objectively, foreign terrorists come in a distant second behind agents of the United States "government." Who would be in a better position to have pulled off such an attack, an official inside the U.S. national security system, or an Arab in a cave in Afghanistan? And which of those would expect to be killed, and which would expect to gain power, as a result of such an event? Which of those did gain power, and which of those did get killed? (As an aside, if you were a homicide investigator, and of your two leading suspects, one insisted that the other had done it, would you take his word for it?)

To most Americans these questions are "unthinkable." A moment of rational consideration says that people inside the U.S. "government" would have the means to do it, and something to gain from it, far more so than a ragtag band of terrorists somewhere in the Middle East. But most Americans are simply unable to consider the possibility that Americans could have done such a thing. Because of the pack-mentality and nationalism they were trained to feel, they want the perpetrators to be from another country, another religion--they want them to be the "other guys," so they can be despised, hated, and then destroyed. To even consider the possibility that it was a "false flag" operation, such as people in power have been committing throughout all of history, would leave most Americans feeling scared and confused.

Consider an analogy. More often than you may realize, firefighters get caught starting fires, in order to get more work (and more money), and so they can look like heroes. When that happens, people feel a deep betrayal, bewilderment, confusion and anger. We want protectors and good guys to be ... well ... protectors and good guys. How about cops getting caught running extortion rackets? How about the CIA getting caught running drugs? How about the ATF getting caught recently, supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels? What part of this hints that we shouldn't even consider the possibility that Americans could ever commit evil to serve their own wealth and power?

Most Americans imagine that people in "our" "government" could never have done anything as heinous as what happened on 9/11. Yes, everyone knows that politicians are liars and crooks, but they want to imagine that "our" politicians aren't monsters. They wouldn't commit mass murder for political ends! Except that we all know they have. The two worst individual acts of terrorism--mass murdering of civilians used to coerce those in power to change their ways--were the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, with combined death tolls nearly a hundred times those of 9/11. Everyone knows it was top U.S. officials who made that happen. Maybe that doesn't count, because those were foreign civilians being murdered. The American politicians would never kill Americans in order to serve their own power and political ends! Except that the Pentagon Papers show exactly that: U.S. politicians sending thousands of American soldiers off to suffer and die, based on lies and a political agenda.

Okay, but those were soldiers. The U.S. politicians would never kill American civilians! Except in Waco, where almost a hundred men, women and children were systematically tortured, mentally and physically, and then murdered. (If you haven't seen the FLIR tapes from that event, don't claim to know that it was mass suicide.) Ruby Ridge? Kent State? Okay, sometimes agents of "government" go too far, but those in power would never intentionally plan to fake terrorist attacks, and then blame it on someone else, in order to justify their military agenda! Really? Go read the declassified documents relating to "Operation Northwoods" if you think U.S. officials would never do such a thing.

(Notice that I'm using links to mainstrean, statist sites admitting these things, rather than sources anyone could pretend are run by "anti-government conspiracy kooks.")

It is quite understandable that after all the pain and suffering that has happened because of the events of 9/11, people want some sort of resolution and closure. They want everything to be okay again. They don't want uncertainty about what happened. They want to know the enemy, and feel like he is being dealt with. They want to feel secure again. These are understandable emotions, but they all get in the way of knowing the truth. Some people even have emotional tantrums whenever others question the official story, as if that somehow desecrates the memory of those who died on that day. But if we truly want to "honor the dead," we should make sure we actually know what happened, and who did it. And right now, the most ridiculous, impossibly implausible conspiracy theory out there, is the one most Americans have accepted on faith. It is a lie they are comfortable with, a lie they can cheer for, a lie they can live with. The truth, well, that may prove to be a lot more difficult to stomach.

After all, if some people inside your own government were responsible for intentionally killing thousands of innocents ... would you even want to know? (See "V for Vendetta.") If you are unwilling to even think about such a scenario, then you are exactly the type of person a false flag operation would work well on, and therefore the type of person a false flag operation is likely to be used against.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." [J. Edgar Hoover]

The more the American people remain blindly loyal to those who claim to be "authority," the more those in power have to gain by exploiting that blind loyalty. That is how people in power have always operated. If, by committing evil, they can persuade you to give them more power, they will do it.

Yes, there are evil people in the world, and they tend to gravitate toward positions of power. Yes, they are evil enough to commit fraud, theft, assault, even murder, to serve their own ends. And very few of them are stupid enough to be honest and open about who they are and what they want. Instead, they cloak their malice under a veil of good will; they cloak their hatred for humanity under a guise of compassion. And yes, they connive and conspire to use your virtue against you, to use your compassion and goodness to enslave and destroy you. They will do the unthinkable, simply because they know that you won't think of it, and you won't believe it when it happens. Then they will wring their hands, shed a fake tear, and offer their phony heart-felt condolences. After that, what you may mistake for a caring embrace will be them tightening their grip around your throat.

(P.S. If you want to stop being duped by political liars, crooks and murderers, read "How To Be a Successful Tyrant." Know their playbook, and their tricks will stop working on you.)

As one critic of the official explanation of the events of 9/11 put it,
in wryly roundabout fashion, "No building exhibiting all the﻿
characteristics of a controlled demolition, has ever not been a controlled demolition." In other words, if it looks like a controlled demolition, it is a controlled demolition.

The aircraft strikes did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate.
The fires did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate. The
combination of aircraft strikes and fires did not cause the three WTC
towers to disintegrate. The three WTC towers disintegrated as a result
of controlled demolitions. The aircraft strikes provided superficially
plausible "causes" for the controlled demolitions.

Yes, the political implications are far-reaching and deeply unsettling.
After all, if the three WTC towers were destroyed by controlled
demolition, then 9/11 was almost certainly an Inside Job, a False Flag
Operation, a Reichstag Fire, or as the Project for a New American
Century and George W. Bush put it, a "New Pearl Harbor."

Most Americans, however cynical and jaded, cannot bring themselves to
believe that "our" government would ever murder 3,000 of its own
citizens, with premeditation and in cold blood.

But hard scientific and engineering realities cannot be evaded. There is
simply no way around them. As Sherlock Holmes reminded his faithful
assistant Dr. Watson, "How often have I said to you that when you have
eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must
be the truth?"

Like millions of other fellow citizens, I could not believe "our" government could commit such a horrendous atrocity. Therefore I turned elsewhere for answers.

Eventually however, the knowledge that modern steel high-rise buildings do not suddenly and miraculously disintegrate into thousands of fragments and fall straight down at free fall velocity, forced its way back into my consciousness.

Intractable architectural and structural engineering realities eventually forced me to conclude that 9/11 could only have been a case of MIHOP, or "Made it happen on purpose." I was forced to conclude that key elements within "our" government probably planned the attacks. They carried them out, either on their own or with al-Qaeda, then framed al-Qaeda for them afterwards.

A controlled demolition is a unique and distinctive process. Nothing looks like a controlled demolition except a controlled demolition. If something looks like a controlled demolition, it is a controlled demolition. The destruction of the three WTC towers looked like controlled demolitions, because they were controlled demolitions.

This is a YouTube video from an Article posted today on Freedom's Phoenix, titled: 911 Ten Years After 9/11 Is the LitmusTest

Comment by Denise Bojorquez

Entered on: 9/12/2011 1:14:19 PM

As usual Larkin, very well said. I do not know how any reasonable, well-thinking person could argue with what you're saying. Unforunately, the vast majority of Americans today are not reasonable or well-thinking. The propagandists and mind controllers have done their job well these past 50+ years. Fortunately, we do not need a majority to turn things around - only a tireless minority that refuses to give up. One person who is awake and determined can effect more change than 500 who are not. Let's hope we reach the 3-5% we need before it truly is too late. This article should be printed and distributed far and wide.

Comment by Anonymous

Entered on: 9/12/2011 12:17:22 PM

H. Skip Robinson … your generalization once again SKIPPED the issue I brought up against Larken Rose’s nonsense. You have nothing to contribute to prove that my calling Rose’s drivel nonsense is wrong. That’s because you cannot contribute anything since it requires more than a personal attack to contribute to an intellectual discussion. If you can prove what I said in Rose’s statements I quoted is wrong, please fascinate me with your brilliance. Dullness does not make me stand up with interest if you want to cut my snoring off my seat.

You seem to attempt to impress me with your timeline of knowledge. I really don’t care if you were born during the antediluvian period when Man started to think that he can use his brain instead of his brawn in order to survive or it really does not matter to me if your date of birth took place after 911 when Man started to overuse his thinking ability into converting theory to truth or what is not real into reality – the point is, your reading of "history, economic policy, legal cases" and your "real life experiences" that you claimed you have, should be used to prove that what you are saying is right. None of that are happening … just blah, blah … only ramblings. Read you comment below, and find out if there is anything relevant to the issue I brought up pointing to Larken Rose’s avalanche of foolish assumptions and flawed conclusions like he was a loose cannon in firing his hatred of Government.

Comment by Steve B.

Entered on: 9/12/2011 11:45:51 AM

What happened on 9/11? How did it happen? Who had the means
to make it happen? Who had the motive to make what happened happen?

What is a real investigation? What would a real prosecution
of the criminals entail?

Forensic study of the evidence is ground zero for
understanding what happened and how it happened? Too many people want to jump
the gun, or shark (for fans of Happy Days). I think jump the shark is a better
analogy because the most frequent hypothesizes are somewhat discredited by asserting
“who done it” before identifying what actually happened. Who did WHAT?

Reliant on the laws of physics that are essentially irrevocable,
it is impossible for the four alleged airliners to have allegedly crashed as
per the official 911 Omission Report tells it. If you don’t believe that, and
you shouldn’t just on my say so, do a quick google on: “plane crash photos”.What you will see is pictures of plane debris
and the objects they crashed into. Then go look at the four alleged airliner
crash sites and see if you can identify any plane debris.

I’ll tell you right now, the four alleged plane crashes were
the four cleanest (free of plane debris) crash sites in aviation history. And
they all happened on the same day. That’s what they’d want us to believe if we
were to think about what actually happened. But they don’t want you, me or
anyone to think. They want us to let them do our thinking for us. It’s called
propaganda. Which, as a side note, Edward Bernays – the father of propaganda
and whom Joseph Goebbels credited for his great success
as Adolf Hitler's propaganda minister --
coined the phrase, “public relations,” because “propaganda” was too caustic.

There’s way more than
that in terms of empirical evidence in the forensic investigation that proves the
alleged airliners didn’t crash on 9/11. Including the physics that prove the
impossibility of the alleged plane crashes --high school level physics. Very
simple, yet irrefutable.

Here’s one presentation of the facts that is the crux of a
Qui Tam case that went to federal court:http://tinyurl.com/3vhow2m
Of course, the court would insure the case would never make it to trial. That
was to be expected. Yet, it is in the record.

Even though the defendants motioned the court to deny
hearing the case with prejudice – they wanted the court to make it appear the
case was frivolous and without any merit – the court denied the defendants’
motion. The judge and court may have been in their back pocket but the judge
wasn’t about to give them a reach-around.

Let’s be clear, for the court, in their legal realm of “justice”
it’s a crime to perpetrate a fraud on the court. A lie cannot be proven. The
plaintiffs knew this. Thus, it would be absurd to think the plaintiffs would
have been so dumb as to try and prove a lie in court. Especially when it’s
David going after Goliath.

Okay, that’s just the very tip of the iceberg with regards
to what actually happened on 9/11. And it’s more than enough to logically conclude
that there has been an ongoing cover up of what really happened on 9/11. The
cover up includes, at minimum, people in government and main stream media.

The question becomes not so much a question of, “who did it”
on 9/11? Rather, who are the people that are party to the cover up and who had
the most to gain from it?

Let’s see, no planes means there were no 19 Muslim suicide
hijackers. No Osama Bin Laden as the great terrorist threat, no looming Al Qaeda
threat. No Afghanistan or Iraq terrorist threats. Two wars of aggression.
Patriot Acts 1 & 2 that could never protect anyone from the non-existent threat
that were nothing but illusionary, enemy outposts in people’s heads. Installed
in people by politicians, bureaucrats and main stream media personalities
selling the pack-of-lies cover up story. Commonly referred to as the Official Government
Conspiracy Theory (OGCT) by thinking people.

There’s much more. Such as the TSA sexual assaults on men, women,
grandmothers and young children that would land you and I in a cage if we were
to do it without a government ”license,” as the TSA workers have.

Since there were no
planes, what caused the destruction of the twin towers? Despite the OGCT that
the towers were destroyed in a rapid pancake series collapse, we can rule that
out because after the dust settled anyone could see there was no stack of
pancakes/floors. So then, where did the
towers go?

Some of the leading figures of the” 9/11 truth movement” continue
to perpetrate a fraud on the movement. Thermite, nano-thermite, paint on
thermite and most recently, super thermite couldn’t have caused the destruction
of the towers in a controlled demolition.

If not, then where did the abundance of iron and aluminum
particles that are ingredients of thermite come from? More importantly, why
could it not be thermite, nano-thermite, paint-on thermite or super thermite?

In order for an explosive device to break apart a solid
object -- the “destructive fragmentation effect” – the detonation velocity or
the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in must
travel through the substance at least as fast, typically much faster, than
sound waves travel through the material.

In air, sound travels at 331 m/s (meters per second). Speed
of sound travels through concrete at 3,200 m/s. For steel, the speed of sound
is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT has a detonation velocity
of 6,900. Therefore it’s capable of fragmenting steel and concrete because its detonation
velocity of 6,900 exceeds the velocity required to fragment or shatter concrete
and steel, which are 3,000 m/s and 6,900 m/s, respectively.

Iron-oxide/aluminum nano-thermite has a detonation velocity
of 895 m/s. Far short of what is required to shatter concrete and steel. Much
less turn the towers to powder or dust as is what happened to the towers. They
were turned to dust. The vast majority of them anyways.

Physics prove the impossibility of thermite being the cause
of a controlled demolition of the twin towers. Not to mention there’s at least
two dozen other affects that when examining the evidence a thermite-controlled
demolition couldn’t have caused those effects.

As to the other question; where did the abundance of
iron-oxide and aluminum in the dust come from? Well, iron-oxide is rust. Steel
rusts. Laid end to end, there was over 550 miles of vertical steel columns,
spandrel belts, trusses and floor pans. Stated differently, 200,000 tons of
steel. And the exterior sheathing of the twin towers was made of aluminum.

The most likely conclusion is that the tiny iron-oxide and
aluminum particles that fell all over lower Manhattan came from the towers, not
thermite.

Gee, need we wonder why a few prominent leaders of the 911 truth
movement didn’t bother to address these issues (some have yet to be addressed)
prior to being questioned on them. Would it not be obvious to a scientific
researcher and structural engineer to speak on the most likely source of the
abundant iron-oxide and aluminum particulate matter in the dust debris.

I think it was communist leader Vladimir Lenin that said: the
best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Whatever caused the steel, concrete and aluminum to turn to
dust had an ancillary effect that can be seen in several photos that show rapid
rusting on cars and trucks in the vicinity of the WTC – there was 1400 “toasted”
cars.

Now, think about that in terms of rapid rusting of steel in
the twin towers as they were being destroyed. Much of the steel in the towers
may not have been rusting until the process of the destruction/dustification of
the towers took place.

There’s so much more, such as, there was just one filing
cabinet found. It was mangled in a way that didn’t appear to have been crushed.
There were no pieces of any toilet found, no metal door knobs. Yet dozens of
plastic ID tags survived.

Have you seen the video of the 600-foot-tall steel core-column
spire turn to dust? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
See large piece of the tower turning to dust in mid air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dueVm1UGvXo

In the years it took to construct the towers, imagine the huge
amounts of heat energy, eclectic energy and human energy it took to build them.
Now consider the massive amount of energy it required to turn them to dust in
less than a minute. Energy that didn’t come from thermite, conventional
explosives or mini-nukes.

An energy source that the perps used to destroy man-made
values – the twin towers, a prominent symbol of the magnificent values created
by civilized conscious beings --and destroyed man himself. Not just the
physical deaths – as horrific as those are -- but also the psychological
contradictions they created in the enemy outpost in people’s minds via the
ongoing cover up and programs they put in place as a result of their lies. They
chose that rather than “give” the awesome powerful energy source to the world populace
for the benefit of all.

As one investigator/researcher who also filed a federal Qui
Tam case and received the same treatment in the above mentioned Qui Tam case filed
by Morgan Reynolds’ said:

“We stand today at the dawn of an entirely new age. Man has
in his hands a method of disrupting the molecular basis for matter and the
ability to split the earth in half on a moments notice. (It gives the term,
"scortched-earth policy" a new significance.) The technology that was
demonstrated on 911 can split the earth in half or it can be used to allow ALL
people to live happily ever after with free energy.

“However, he who controls the energy, controls the people. Control of energy
leads to destruction of the planet.

“But we have a choice. And this choice is real. Live happily ever after or
destroy the planet. This is why I have been studying the evidence of what happened
on 9/11. This evidence is central to it all. 9/11 was a demonstration of a new
technology; free energy. It can be used for good, but we need to make that
choice and help others to as well.

“We have a choice.” http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html

Lastly, three of the lead figures of the 911 truth movement filed
a Qui Tam case shortly after Reynolds and Wood filed their two cases. Some of
the strongest arguments/”evidence” the leading figureheads tout in their
presentations to audiences are that thermite controlled demolitions brought
down the twin towers and pools of molten metal as a result of thermite
explosions (Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive.) However, in their Qui
Tam case filed and now on record there’s no mention of thermite or molten
metal. Save for the word “thermite” that’s buried in one URL in that document.

They knew it would be a fraud on the court to use the court
in attempt to prove a lie. It’s a logical conclusion as to why they didn’t include
their strongest – albeit fraudulent – arguments in their legal filing.

Comment by Anonymous

Entered on: 9/12/2011 10:37:03 AM

This guy says a lot but means nothing …

Mark Edwards … would you please learn how to argue? I know that name-calling is your specialization – and that’s all what you know. Name-calling is proof that you can only say anything you want, rudely, but cannot argue sensibly.

For example, make a statement or a declaration or take a position, then support it by giving example/s that what you are saying is true or at least right. You all are an empty declaration or hollow statement, but not a single word to back it up … just all ad hominem!

You can make a model out of my argument or position that what Larken Rose is saying is "rubbish". I make statements or declarations that in his jabbering or drivel, he was ILLOGICAL, and ignorant of the facts that proved his contradictions. In short – "rubbish".

I have at least six [6] of those declarations pointing to his nonsense. Read my comments again. Understand them if you can. Each of them is followed by example where you can clearly see his blunder. Tip: Admit that Larken Rose is NOT school educated – and in comparison, far down the level of my kind. He said it so many times – that millions of Americans who went to school to get an education are all SLAVES. He is not a slave, this he declares with such foul mouth and false pride, which is an admission that he never have had any school education – okay so far, at least?

I will point out to you what you are terribly missing. Below, you said this to me: You say the author says things he never says. Where is your example that supports this accusation? You only imagined that I have said things that Larken Rose did not say. Look here pal … are you blind or just kidding me? All what your hero said I quoted them in italic. Then these are followed by my findings that what he was talking about are all NONESENSE!

Again I will show you an example where his nonsense lies. In his guesstimate, he posited that the Government has "all the means to do it [to do 911]", and only because of that in his mind the Government did it [???]!! If you have not noticed it, please take time to read it again and tell me if his logic is not gibberish or baloney. The British Government or the Iranian Government has all the means to do it – does this mean any of them could have done 911? Preposterous …!!! Unlike Larken Rose, I assume you have a school education at least to know what illogical thinking means. This is an easy example, and right on the button!

And here is your lack of ability to argue intelligently or if not, your inability to confront a learned man from the academe like me, at least civilly… You said to me that "Pointing out your obvious errors would take far too long, and pointing out your philosophical and logical errors are [sic] an unthinkable waste of time because it would take days. What you are saying here is such a waste of words … an empty statement. You did not point out a single error [because you can’t], yet you claimed there is plenty of these errors.

You see, it takes only less than ten seconds for you to state a single error on my part if really there is such error – NOT DAYS, are you kidding me? But that’s a good excuse for those who have no head over their shoulders and therefore can’t argue, much less an excuse for an empty mind that cannot think what to argue about. Not having that, the easiest thing to do for those who are obviously intellectually handicapped, is just pull a gun and fire at the person who is smarter than they are … and there, they feel good, at least their feeling of emptiness is vindicated.

You imagined that you are better than I am or more educated than I am, so you tried to educate me when you said to me "Don't you realize that the "government" declared independence from the American People a long long time ago? What? When did this happen … and how? Not a single word to support this crap.

Prove to me that you are worth of my time as an opponent you claim to be in this debate who is so far saying a lot but really does not mean nothing.

As to the other guys’ comments ad hominem, stick to the issue I brought up here, directed to Larken Rose’s mental callisthenic or shadow-boxing that I have pointed out to be a futile exercise and at worst a truckload of nonsense. Malicious if not fraudulent intervention of this kind is like an intentional forcible entry into the discussion purposely to rape the truth of my person or of who and what I am – the only person so far who dared to prove that any skewed thinking could be nothing else but wrong.

Any innuendo you invented about my connection to the government and what-not, do violence to the truth or reality, although these are all but whistling in the dark … so irrelevant, and a tremendous waste of time and energy.

Bakadude

Comment by sector seven

Entered on: 9/12/2011 9:56:47 AM

Larken, thank you for writing this. We need to be more suspicious of what the governemnt tells us. They obviously lied about what happened on 9/11, and used it to wage WW3 on the middle east.

“At some level of the government, at some point in time . . . there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened.” - Senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer

Our leaders said we were attacked because we are free and prosperous, so what we had to do was go over there and spread our goodness. How long must we spread our goodness in the Middle East? How long will we water the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

Our leaders say we can’t leave until a just government is securely in place. But can they guarantee it will not be overthrown a week after we leave? Do we just keep going back every time we build something up and they knock it down?

“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it — now.”

- Patrick Henry, 1775.

http://physics911.net/thermite

http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

Comment by H. Skip Robinson

Entered on: 9/12/2011 8:38:57 AM

Bakadude: When are you going to realize that the readers and writers on this site see through all your manipulative ramblings. What are you practicing, with the hopes that the oligarchs will someday pay you to help them misinform society. Most of us were not born yesterday. We actually read history, economic policy, legal cases and have years of real life experiences to support our positions.

Great essay Larken.

Comment by David Jackson

Entered on: 9/12/2011 8:18:32 AM

Though I sometimes find myself at odds with some of Mr. Rose's pronouncements, in theis instance, he is so close to the mark that it is sickening. If he knows this stuff, I know this stuff, and more than a couple of dozen of my closest enemies know this stuff, how is it that everyone doesn't know this stuff? "And the beat goes on..."

Now more than ever, I am in constant turmoil over the appalling state of pertinent knowledge and understanding in our pathetic "consensus society". It is more and more obvious that the culture wars are over in the U.S., and decency, reason, integrity, and "the American Way" have been defeated. It really grinds me that we've lost to the most ludicrous, morally bancrupt, and ineffectual of adversaries: Noboby really enjoys loosing, but it can at least be rationalized if one's adversaries were actually capable and and otherwise"better". Loosing to the lowest forms of "humans" on earth is hard to justify, through any definition or delusion.

More critical that what happened (We know what happened.), is HOW THE HELL IT HAPPENED! Mr. Rose knows.

Way to go...Too little, to late, I fear. (I say this, tounge-in-cheek, because I really don't think the masses ever gave a damn. If they had, we probably wouldn't be staring the "end of civilization" in the arse.

Comment by Robert Leugers

Entered on: 9/12/2011 7:32:15 AM

I like reading Larken Rose, and I am considered a "conspiracy theorist" in that I doubt the media, doubt our politicians, and certainly doubt any, ANY advocacy spouted as the official view. My first comment when I saw the towers collapse while watching it happen on tv was, "I hope our government wasn't involved in any way."

Here is my point. I just finished reading "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane. It is a documentary sort of book, describing Mr. Lane's successful attempt to prove in a court of law that the CIA was involved in a conspiracy to murder the president of the US. They succeeded in November of 1963.So, it is possible that the unthinkable can happen.

All Mr. Rose is saying is that there are too many unanswered questions, too much outstanding evidence to accept the neatly packaged bull droppings layered on us by those in charge. Like in the Kennedy assassination, there was a quick solution to who did it, a summary judgment for those purported to be involved, and an elimination of or an exclusion of all evidence (including witnesses) to the contrary.

We've been asleep at the wheel for over 50 years. No reason to believe we'll change in the next 50.

Comment by Will Boytim

Entered on: 9/11/2011 7:57:20 PM

Larken:

Welcome back! You've been too quiet for too long.

Peace to you and yours.

Brgds, Will.

Comment by Mark Edward

Entered on: 9/11/2011 7:14:35 PM

bakadude : I've never read so much intentional word-wringing and illogical fallacy in my life. You say the author says things he never says. You make things up. You put words in his mouth, and then attack him for words YOU put there. You expose your ignorance by over-employing every possible basic logical fallacy - ad-hominem, strawman, red herring, etc. And your use of insults to degrade and denigrate the author somehow magically is supposed to transfer to your credibility? You already wasted far too much of my time trying to read your "rubbish". Pointing out your obvious errors would take far too long, and pointing out your philosophical and logical errors are an unthinkable waste of time because it would take days. Don't quit your day job, you are not a good writer, and a terrible analyst. YOU are the very type of people he is talking about - unable to THINK, and unwilling to consider any alternative to the "official story", even though you KNOW the "official story" released to the people from "government" is most of the time complete fantasy. I just can't comprehend that anyone could possibly be so dedicated to the "government" like you are... Don't you realize that the "government" declared independence from the American People a long long time ago? Are you employed by them or something?

By the way, of all the people to start a nit-picking battle with over "logic" and "philosophy", you really stepped into the wrong ring on this one. Larken Rose is the LAST writer that any intelligent person would ever call "illogical" or lacking in philosophical understanding. The very fact that you launched such a canned and weak tirade against Larken speaks volumes about your ignorance. Go watch his youtube videos, and read his books. You might learn something.

Comment by Anonymous

Entered on: 9/11/2011 6:27:58 PM

This is “rubbish” … Brian Drake, you are right… This whistling in the wind -- this author’s self-contradicting jabbering or ILLOGICAL rhetoric -- is just a waste of your time.

The British would call this long-winded drivel “rubbish”. I will point out piece by piece where this author’s theoretical nonsense lies – in his own statements [in italics] where he hangs himself as Don Quixote did of himself in attacking the windmill.

1. In this author’s very suspicious mind, he was more than 100% sure that the American people in the Government did 911 – not the Al Qaeda terrorists.And this is his “evidence” to show why it was not Al Qaeda but the U.S. Government that did it, amidst the destructions, deaths and the suffering which in his mind the people in the government had intentionally caused.

The writer who loses his mind for admittedly not going to school to learn the science of logic in the study of philosophy, said: “Who would be in a better position to have pulled off such an attack, an official inside the
U.S. national security system, or an Arab in a cave in
Afghanistan?”Just because “an official inside the U.S. national security system” is in a better position to do it, the conclusion that this government official did it is, in the study of logic in Philosophy as a science of valid reasoning, is reductio ad absurdum – common to the mind of the ignorant.Besides, the Al Qaeda terrorists who did it, did not come from the “cave in
Afghanistan”, if I have to point out such ignorance if not idiocy in the writer’s ridiculous Quixotic argument! The mass-killing terrorists were sophisticated urban terrorists who were trained as suicide commandos to do the “unthinkable” and to achieve the “unachievable” Got it?

2. “[T]he
U.S. ‘government’ would have the means to do it [to do 911] , and something to gain from it, far more so than a ragtag band of terrorists somewhere in the
Middle East.” The author’s conclusion was that the government did it! Again, the terrorists that did it were not just a “band of terrorists somewhere in the Middle East” – they were an organized religious group of suicide-assassins whose rationale for murder is to earn a gate pass to heaven … the author has to straighten up his crooked facts first before using them to support his infantile conclusions that embarrassed scholars of Philosophy and Letters.

Just because the U.S. Government has the means to do it, this Government did it? Let’s say the British Government … the French Government, the Russian Politburo that runs the Soviet Government, the Chinese Government, the N. Korean Government, the Iranian Government, etc. have all the means to do it and no doubt have their own reasons to gain from it, economically, politically or ideologically, you name it [!], but don’t tell me that anyone of them could have in fact done this 911 infamy! That screwed up thinking would be coming from one who should have found a home in a Nuthouse.

3. 911 could have been no doubt the “result of a conspiracy” – Larken Rose. But why would it need be a “government conspiracy” of the people inside the U.S. Government?Why not a “terrorist conspiracy” of murderous fundamentalists from the hostile nations of Islam in the
Middle East and their conspirators from within? Is it because this is true – that 911 was an Islamic conspiracy to destroy buildings in New York and Washington, D.C. and to commit mass murders of innocent civilians – but less sensational than to create a CONSPIRACY THEORY that the people inside the U.S. Government did it – did 911, did the “unthinkable”? Would that not attract attention to Larken Rose’s cultivation of violence, for profit motivation, material consideration [writing a book], in kind [attract patronage if operating a website which he does] or otherwise?

Commercializing a LUNACY, which is unusual or “unthinkable” like those theoretical guesswork, is more profitable than just telling the simple truth that Al Qaeda terrorists did it, which neither brings in any monetary expectation nor admiration of awe that titillates one’s ego.

4. “Consider an analogy. More often than you may realize, firefighters get caught starting fires, in order to get more work (and more money), and so they can look like heroes.” Conclusion: The firemen did it – Larken Rose. Tssk…tssk.

By analogy, let’s cite the most recent fires in
Texas: September 2011: 600 homes destroyed in
Bastrop
County; April 2011: 168 homes destroyed in
Palo
Pinto
County near
Possum
Kingdom
Lake – damages have been estimated to run hundred of millions of dollars not to speak of death and injury. Firefighters didn’t cause the fires, which in this sick mind “in order to get more work [and more money]” [and that is really sick]– firefighters put out the fires and saved millions of homes and people from death and injury.In Larken Rose’ mind, they didn’t pretend to “look like heroes” … THEY WERE HEROES – like those firefighters in Ground Zero. Got it?

There are more flaws in this disoriented thinking than astronauts are able to count potholes in the surface of the Moon, but let’s cite a couple more impossible assertions and “unthinkable” conclusions common to the author’s faulty thinking, just for this brief instance:

5. “
U.S. politicians [are] sending thousands of American soldiers off to suffer and die…” – Larken Rose’s impossible assertion, and “unthinkable” conclusion, indeed. A lot of us do not like politicians, especially those whose passports to get to public office are nothing but promises and lies … but it is not true that normal people like us would entertain this kind of thinking so screwed up to that point where we believed that they – those lying politicians – are sending thousands of American soldiers off, just to see them suffer and die. What kind of a sadistic crackpot would that be? Those whose mean-spiritedness condemned all politicians that way would be so sick that they need medical attention – and pronto!

6. That 911 was the handiwork of Al Qaeda terrorists was the truth and nothing but the truth to millions of American and to millions and millions of people around the globe, except to Larken Rose, and a few believers of the Government Conspiracy Theory. To these street “theorists”, the truth that Al Qaeda terrorist operatives did 911 was a lie that in Rose’s mind Americans “are comfortable with, a lie they can cheer for, a lie they can live with …”

And to certain speculating “theorists” or to some moonstruck guessing buffs the likes of Larken Rose, what is the truth? Their guessing game says that the Government probably did it. In short, their THEORY suddenly becomes the TRUTH! In Rose’s words … “The truth, well, that may prove to be a lot more difficult to stomach.”

To protect the public, time to dial 911 for an ambulance ...emergency white straitjackets are needed!

Comment by Danny Andersen

Entered on: 9/11/2011 5:21:32 PM

I've taken the time to look closely at all the evidence presented that countered the official version and I have to say there is literally a mountain of very interesting questions and evidence that have yet to be answered. Far too much to talk about here but a few of them...melting point of construction grade steel, molten steel in elevator wells 4 floors down and one month later, photos of micro explosions going of at the corners as building is going down....and this one is really good...

The seismograph readings from Columbia University. The chief scientist there said at the time (before being silenced) that the two identified "EXPLOSIONS WERE BOTH SUB-SURFACE" and of huge magnitude and each one happened seconds BEFORE the start of each collapse. Seismograph instruments are very accurate and don't lie. I personally secured a copy and the statement of the reading. And many others have it. The explosion could not have come from anything happening above ground, he had stated!

And wait till you read what the professional pilots have to say! Your not going to believe it. But then, a fire commander and building engineer felt an explosion down a few floors and investigated...guess what they saw? NO BUILDING COLUMNS LEFT! And on and on and on...much more. And all available to anyone that cares to look.

The stupid people in this country deserve what they get. They're not even willing to question the alternative. I am frightened of my fellow man as he exists here, not some foreign terrorists living in caves.

The stuff that I see coming from gov't is insulting to my intelligence.

Comment by Robert Bilyeu

Entered on: 9/11/2011 3:18:59 PM

Considering reports concerning the Bin Laden family being able to fly back to Saudi Arabia after the nations airports had been shut down, the five Israelis on the rooftop in order to record the event, the shutdown of the George Washington bridge and other bridges and tunnels in New York I don't think anyone has to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that there are many unanswered questions regarding 9/ll that truly deserve open answers. I would advise interested people to read the writings and speeches of Benjamin Freedman. Larkin is indeed correct in saying that most people do react much more readily to emotion than to logic and reasoning.

Comment by Randy Lee

Entered on: 9/11/2011 2:33:28 PM

Unthinkable? I recall the words of Condoleezza Rice, "no one could have imagined that this would happened.". And yet today watching the history channel a story aired about the head of security for Morgan Stanley/Dean Witter and how he had been expecting such an attack ever since the first bombing back in the 90s.

What's unthinkable is that some Arab hijackers with box cutters could accomplish something of this magnitude on their own. Now people like Brian want Larken to spell some conspiracy scenario out to them so they can turn around and tear it apart.

I remember reading about were back in the 1970s when hijackings were a common occurrence that planes were going to be fitted with a means to control them remotely from the ground in the event of a hijacking. Now I wonder how many people it would take to develop software to enable some maniac to autopilot and take over a number of planes simultaneously. It would appear that all one would have to have is the inside information with respect to the autopilot codes applicable to each plane.

Simulations could be done on a computer until the auto-controller was completely competent. Then it's just a matter of linking to the control boxes already mounted in the planes. And should someone suggest such auto control boxes don't exist in the planes, how many other insiders would be required to fit such auto control boxes in a few planes for some given occasion.

Am I saying this is how it went down? No. But it is one possibility. And it wouldn't take very many hands-on insiders to be involved. Does this scenario answer all the questions? No. But it would make a whole lot more sense than getting me to believe that Arab pilots with no training in these types of planes could have pulled this off.

There also has to be some other explanations concerning building seven, and what Larry Silverstein meant when he said to the New York fire Department just prior to its collapse, "pull it".

And by the way, why didn't the wings of the alleged plane that hit the Pentagon cause any damage to the building?

I'm certainly not sure what our government's involvement was, but no one can deny that they have capitalized upon this event by placing more limits on our freedom. I also see it is highly likely that even if there actually were Arab hijackers involved that our government knew about it ahead of time and capitalized upon the situation by preparing the buildings for total demolition. How else do we explain the destruction of building seven?

Comment by Larken Rose

Entered on: 9/11/2011 2:06:22 PM

Brian,

1) Who says 15 to 20 people killed themselves? Did you see that happen, or did "government" tell you it happened? (Incidentally, of the 19 they said killed themselves, haven't seven or so shown up alive since then?)

2) How many hundreds of times have people been sent to their deaths by "authority," without the people even knowing they were going to die?

3) Read the "Operation Northwoods" documents. It involves top U.S. military officials discussing the commission of false flag terrorist attacks, including hijackings, making drones look like civilian aircraft, switching planes in mid flight, planting evidence, etc. Obviously THEY didn't think doing such things would be impossible.

Look, I don't spend day in and day out trying to rule the world, but even I could come up with some pretty plausible ways to do really nasty things, with hardly any other people needing to know what really happened. If you had a trillion dollars, couldn't you? Like I said, I don't pretend to know exactly who did what, but I do know that most Americans simply REFUSE to consider the events objectively. And I'm afraid you proved my point, since you claim it would be impossible for people in the "government" to pull it off, but possible for some twits in a cave in Afghanistan to do it.

Larken

Comment by Mick Vogel

Entered on: 9/11/2011 1:45:33 PM

Does anybody remember how many people voluntarily drank Jim Jone's koolaid knowing it was going to kill them?

How about Heaven's Gate followers? Were there 15-20 people willing to do themselves in?

I am thinking that it wouldn't be all that hard to find 15-20 disgruntled people to kill themselves if they were convinced it would make a difference in the world and their eternity.

Comment by Joe Plummer

Entered on: 9/11/2011 1:27:01 PM

Brian,

I will try to
address some of your points:

However this
argument is way over the top in terms of scope and it's execution.>>>

AND

>>

I guess I'll start with your statement "our govt / CIA
would have to find 15-20 guys to voluntarily kill themselves." I think it
would be more accurate to say: "The CIA would need to funnel money,
intelligence and training to individuals who wanted to attack the US and were
willing to die in the process."

Since there are obviously people willing
to blow themselves up in the pursuit of their political objectives, and since
the CIA can easily CREATE and / or covertly support organizations that cater to
these types of individuals, it doesn't seem very 'over the top' to me.

When you
add in the Neoconservative's white paper (Rebuilding America's defenses) it
seems the authors knew the benefit of such an attack. Openly admitting their
desire to create a 'unipolar world' and 'full spectrum dominance,’ they wrote:
"...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change,
is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event –
like a new Pearl Harbor."

>>

I wrote this back in 2006 on the ‘vast conspiracy’ point:

“Classified / covert operations are
designed to involve very few people, and information is ‘compartmentalized’ so
even those involved are given info on a ‘need to know only’ basis.

However, there is another angle to this I haven't seen
brought up: How is it that people can easily accept 19 suicidal Arabs
(commanded by a man in a cave) could pull off an operation the scale of 9/11;
but an equally small number of people (with literally 10,000 times the
resources available to them) could not?

It is a bit like suggesting 10 armed thugs could plan and pull
off a bank robbery, but 5 ‘bank executives’ (with keys, codes, intimate
knowledge of procedure, security, etc.) couldn't. Of course, to keep this
analogy realistic, our ‘executives’ would also need the power to destroy
evidence, derail investigations, place gag orders, intercept communications on
anyone they please, and (just for good measure) have the power to imprison
people indefinitely without trial.”

Many reputable people (including law
enforcement / military) have spoken out against the official 9/11 ‘conspiracy
theory.’ Check out http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
for a good list.

Also, Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik taught
false-flag tactics for the US and held numerous influential positions under
three different Presidents. He still works with the Defense Department and is
prepared to testify in front of a grand jury that a top general told him
directly that 9/11 was a false flag operation. You’d think somebody would be
interested in hearing that testimony. Here is the clip: http://stopthelie.com/pieczenik-on-the-911-attacks.html

there is never a set
of facts or even speculation of who and just how they could have executed a
plan without ever being discovered. .Yours and others hypothesis' falls apart under close scrutiny.>>>

The official account of what happened on 9/11 is a
demonstrable fraud. If you want to talk about something that ‘falls apart under
close scrutiny’ you could hardly find a better example. Almost NOBODY (not even
those involved in the so-called ‘9/11 Commission”) believes that the ‘case is
closed.’ (Reference: http://www.prisonplanet.com/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-%E2%80%A6-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html
)

And on that point, I’ll end with something else I wrote
years ago:

“The main goal of the 9/11 truth movement is (logically
enough) to uncover the truth of what really happened on 9/11.

Those charged with writing the official government theory
(the 9/11 Commission) promised us "the fullest possible account."
However, by limiting the parameters of their investigation (to "avoid
placing blame") their stated goal became impossible. Vital evidence was
ignored and, even when they suspected they were being lied to,
nobody was held accountable.

Working within this limited framework, the 9/11 Commission
COULD NOT do its job. As such, its job has not been done. The truly independent
investigation American citizens fought so hard to secure has yet to commence.
In short: We're not demanding another investigation; we're still
demanding the first one.

This point sums up the conflict between supporters of the
9/11 truth movement and those who deny its merit. In the end, the truth
movement seeks a complete and unbiased assessment of ALL the evidence ignored
by the 9/11 Commission. Additionally, it seeks the opportunity to rebut
falsified claims with more plausible ones.

On the other side of the equation, we have those in
government (and their defenders) who seek to prevent a legitimate investigation
into the events of 9/11. It seems the same people who've been
"mistaken" so many times in the past are again demanding we forego
critical thought and embrace blind faith. Once again, we're to trust they speak
the truth without error. “

Full article here: http://stopthelie.com/the_911_truth_movement.html

Comment by Don Duncan

Entered on: 9/11/2011 1:19:40 PM

Brian: Thanks for making Larken's point about how irrational Americans can be about what they believe is "their government". You assert that "getting 15-20 people to voluntarily commit suicide" is nearly impossible. What is the alternative? 9-11 was an accident? Was the mysterious collapse of building 7 ever dealt with by the commission or any other gov body? No! If the official explanation of the twin towers collapse is accepted without critical analysis, the third collapse is accepted without any analysis, i.e., on faith that this strange event is not a smoking gun pointing to a false flag operation. (Nothing to see here, ladies and gentlemen, move on, just forget it.) The pity is: The vast majority have "moved on" because they do not want to consider the implications. Perhaps they have a subconscious defense mechanism that blocks any deep critical thinking that might lead to the conclusion government is not our protector, but quite the opposite. What do you think public school is for?

Comment by Marilyn Poythress

Entered on: 9/11/2011 1:02:31 PM

The comment: " there could NEVER be a conspiracy so successful, involve so very may persons, be so effective to so many lives, etc etc ....." ..Well, did this person EVER read the speech of Louis T McFadden in the House of Representatives on June 10, 1932 which explains in detail the VERY SUCCESSFUL CONSPIRACY OF 1913 which we feel even yet today to the tune of trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars, millions and millions of jobs, billions and billions of lives....Thanks,Marilyn

Comment by Rick Johnson

Entered on: 9/11/2011 1:00:36 PM

It seems the most recent commenter is subject to the very quote Larken inserted into his essay: "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." [J. Edgar Hoover].

Mossad's traditional and professional motto is: "By Way of Deception".

Somebody did it and got away with it. The question who is that somebody?

Comment by Brian Drake

Entered on: 9/11/2011 11:33:48 AM

Larken,

Give me a break. I have followed you for many years and often agreed with you when you talked about the IRS. Your mind is playing tricks with you. Yes, in most cases, governments can manipulate facts especially when it comes to creating events which will help us get into wars, etc. However this argument is way over the top in terms of scope and it's execution. First, our gov't (CIA, etc) would have to find 15-20 guys to voluntarily kill themselves. Just that alone would almost be impossible let alone all the other planning which would be needed to accomplish this vast conspiracy. As a former intelligence agent and criminal investigator in the 60s and 70s for our government, this would be almost impossible to pull off. Very large conspiracies never work because there is a always a weak link. It is one thing for you and I to conspire to do evil because we develop a sense of trust though frequent contact especially when there is a match of revolutionary fervor! What you don't even attempt to explain to us readers is how this conspiracy could develop and put in place involving so many people. It is always easy to state that this event was really executed by certain elements in our government but there is never a set of facts or even speculation of who and just how they could have executed a plan without ever being discovered. Yours and others hypothosis' falls apart under close scrutiny. Lay it out for us on how you think the plan was created, who created it, who the many players were and how one could possibly keep such secrets without someone bringing those events ananomously public by using publications as Wikileaks or someone coming forward such as the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Brian Drake

Stkdealer@gmail.com

Comment by Donald Laface

Entered on: 9/11/2011 11:30:59 AM

Unthinkable to whom? somebody thought of it...and its interesting also how 2 jets into 2 buildings in NYC..brought down a 3rd building so professionally...hmmmm!